AgentDrift: A Step-Labeled Benchmark of Injection-Hijacked LLM Agent Trajectories

When an indirect prompt injection succeeds against an LLM agent, the compromise is visible in the agent's own behavior: a benign prefix of tool calls, a poisoned observation, and a suffix of actions that serve the attacker. An operator needs three facts: where the attack entered, which steps it corrupted, and whether apparent poison was resisted. Existing systems return either a whole-trace verdict or a single unsafe index. We present DriftNet, a dual-head trajectory Transformer that reads a logged tool-call trajectory and answers all three questions in one forward pass: one head classifies the trajectory as compromised or not, and a second assigns every step one of four labels (benign, injection point, hijacked, failed injection). To our knowledge it is the first supervised detector to produce this joint output. A frozen sentence encoder and four identity-free world features embed each step; the trained trunk, under two million parameters and optimized with a class-weighted joint objective over both heads, needs no access to the agent's model. On the task-disjoint split of the AgentDrift benchmark (12,536 trajectories, 71,024 labeled steps), with a 20-configuration sweep bounding hyperparameter sensitivity to 0.011 F1 and the test part evaluated exactly once, DriftNet reaches trajectory-level F1 of 0.983, exact injection-point recovery on 98.7% of attacked trajectories, hijacked-span IoU of 0.979, zero flags on 218 resisted attacks, and 2.9% flags on hard negatives. A surface baseline retrained on the identical split recovers 11.1% of partial hijacks and 17.1% of delayed executions; DriftNet reaches 98.6% and 93.2% while lowering every false-alarm rate. Reading all 26 residual errors shows that most misses trace to trajectories whose labeled injection observation carries no legible instruction, and we report the benchmark's measured world-identity regularity alongside the results.

LLM agents increasingly screen tool outputs with small prompt-injection detectors, and teams choose among detectors by their scores on public benchmarks. We ask whether those scores predict how a detector behaves inside an agent. We replay the ground-truth tool calls of two agent benchmarks, AgentDojo and tau-bench, without an LLM to obtain tool outputs that are benign by construction, label injected outputs by differential replay, and evaluate fifteen detectors, including Meta's Prompt Guard 2, and two task-aware LLM judges on these outputs and on the BIPIA benchmark. Detection rankings transfer poorly between benchmarks: the best detector on BIPIA catches 2% of AgentDojo injections at a 1% false-positive rate, and a detector that catches 72% of AgentDojo injections catches 15% on tau-bench. False-positive rates on tool outputs, which range from none to over 90%, do transfer between the two agent benchmarks. Where training data is public, the form of the training inputs explains the results. The BIPIA leader was trained on full BIPIA inputs, but having seen InjecAgent's attack strings as short prompts does not help it find them inside tool outputs; the best detector on both agent benchmarks shares no data with any benchmark and was trained on agent-style inputs. Evaluations meant to inform deployment should use the agent's own tool outputs, report detection at a low false-positive rate, and audit what the detector was trained on.

LLM-based agents increasingly execute long-horizon, end-to-end workflows involving shell commands, code modification, dependency installation, and interaction with remote services. This growing autonomy expands their exposure to indirect prompt injection (IPI), where adversarial instructions embedded in external content are interpreted as legitimate task directives. Existing evaluations, however, often focus on isolated malicious strings, single-step tool calls, or narrowly scoped agent configurations. We introduce INFUSE, an end-to-end benchmark for evaluating IPI throughout the lifecycle of long-horizon agent workflows. INFUSE comprises 40 realistic tasks and a structured taxonomy of 56 attack scenarios spanning five threat categories. Attacks are injected through realistic interaction surfaces encountered during task execution, extending evaluation beyond attacks placed only in initial prompts or isolated tool interactions. We evaluate 19 LLMs from the GPT, Claude, Gemini, Llama, Gemma, and Qwen families, producing 41,824 adversarial trajectories (26,220 without defenses) and 720 benign reference runs. Across the benchmark, mean attack success reaches 19.6% under LLM-based evaluation and 15.4% under heuristic verification, with per-model ASR-L ranging from 3.2% to 41.9%. Existing guard models provide limited protection, while prompt-level instructional hardening reduces mean attack success from 58.2% to 14.3%, revealing substantial but model-dependent security-utility trade-offs. Our code is available at https://github.com/judydnguyen/infuse.